A stereotypical yuppie lives in the suburbs though.

To even list "indoor parking spots" like that's a big deal is pretty Henryriffic. Unless you live in a really densely populated urban center finding parking is not a concern. A two car garage is something lots of people who won't be retiring with $1.5M have access to.

Wait:
lol what? When did Expedia become low class?

No, what you're missing is that people who aren't DINKs (and DINKs are a small portion of 250k+ earners) or whatever you want to call it will have much different priorities and their "lifestyle summary" is going to look a lot different than that.

Yuppie = Young URBAN Professional.

In henry's view only poor people have standalone houses. 250k people have (high-floor, natch) apartment/condos. Why would anyone want a yard?

Actually it is the point of the thread. The thread is the result of a professor posting somewhere that $250,000 in family income is barely enough money to live the life he feels he deserves. I agree with the professor. He then goes on to state that if his taxes increase then he will go from barely being able to afford to not being able to afford.

If you disagree with the professor and me then you need to do one of two things. The first option is to claim that our list of what someone who has worked hard to have a professional lifestyle deserves is inappropriate. The professor has removed his list so I have created one to work as a base. The secon option is that you can agree that the list is fine but that you can afford it with the $250,000 income. At that point it is simply a math problem.

You really have no interest in doing either and just want to claim that $250,000 is a lot of money without any substantiation. You'll likely base it on some meaningless percentile argument. The reason is that you know that if it comes down to actually pricing out what a stereotypical yuppie lifestyle costs it is really hard to then maintain that $250,000 is rich.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

Henry- You are also one of those people who don't know how tax brackets work, so thank you for your contributions. You've really brought everything to this thread I could hope for.

Also,

This is an amazing phrase. Just in general, this whole sentence is A+ political rhetoric.

Dog, my "substantiation" is the 2, the 5, and then the 4 zeros.

I said this was one of multiple possible examples. I choose a downtown renter because the numbers are actually lower for that. Buying a house would make the numbers much worse.

Like by attempting to explain wealth in real terms? I thought he did a pretty good job and I am sure he understands tax brackets!

Why would anyone need to challenge this claim? It is delusion to think anyone deserves anything.

You can either afford it or you can't. You are either satisfied with it or you aren't.

You can want it until you cry desperate sad tears for the European sports cars you don't have, but in no way does desiring something mean you deserve it, even if not having it makes you very sad.

Why don't you tell me how they work?

I'm sure it will be enlightening.

So basically your position is that if people they they deserve anything more than the bare minimum they are out of touch idiots. If that is the case then this is a useless conversation. You can just go back to your insane hate of people with money and I'll go back to enjoying my life.

People have a desert claim in what they earn. If you want to take their money away you need to justify why you are taking their stuff. Simply because they have more than others is not a reason.

No one is claiming they should be given stuff. I think you are completely missing the point.

Deserves really got nothin to do with it.

Henry, you picked this thread to post in. You saw that I was mocking people for not understanding tax brackets. You claim to be an educated man. Google it yourself, and then apologize to the forum.

I don't hate rich people, I hate stupid people. And that's what this thread has attracted. People who see snarky jackasses like me mocking stupid whiny people like Henderson or Mystal and get defensive.

No, my position is that you don't know how to read, you just skimmed and got your feelings hurt because someone was saying negative words in the same sentence as the word "rich" and you play a rich person on the internet so maybe they were saying negative words about you.

Henry, are you an anarchist?

Then what does it have to do.

If Bob earns the money should he be allowed to spend it on whatever he wants?

I am sure you also don't understand tax brackets. **** is real simple, too. Even been explained in this thread.

I have no idea. One of the most illogical uses of real estate to ever be adopted by hundreds of millions of people.

I have a law degree and am an expert on income tax. Why don't you now explain why I'm wrong?

That may have been your intent but you come across as someone who has no clue what life costs. I find this odd because I though you were a lawyer in a metro yourself but maybe I'm mistaken or maybe you do some non-profit law so have no exposure. Regardless of what the situation is you come off as clueless and that you can't defend your position makes it pretty clear that you just want to bash on rich people for whatever personal motivations you have for that.

Is this because taxation = theft or because taxation is OK but the rich are taxed too much?

Honestly not sure where you are coming from.

We'll do this Socratically, then. Just like old times. Henry, what tax policy change did Henderson write his blog post to argue against?

See, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Are poor people not alive? Everyone who is alive and is responsible for their own finances is self-evidently aware of what life costs.

Isn't your whole ****ing point that the people I'm bashing aren't rich?

Regardless, I'm not bashing rich people as a class. Make all the money you can. Money is great. It buys nice things, which I enjoy.

But I come off as "clueless"? In this exchange? LOL. Your big hitter of a point in this post was that maybe I work for a non-profit and "have no exposure". You can't even accurately describe the "position" I allegedly can't defend.

That's different than saying he deserves a pony.

If you're not getting bottle service twice a month, no, you're not really alive.

Since I don't pay US taxes I don't know. My guess is that this is going to go along the lines of he makes $250,000 and that happens to be a bracket in the States so the new taxes wouldn't impact him or at least not very much assuming he makes just slightly above the line. If that is your position then you should really be embarrassed for having it. Now is that where this is going?

No. People generally only know what they spend. People also tend to see anything beyond what they spend as crazy.

Your position is that couples who make $250,000 are rich. Rich is the ability to afford a certain kind of lifestyle. Despite multiple people who actually do earn $250,000+ explaining to you that the lifestyle you can afford on that while comfortable is not extravagant you simply just keep insisting otherwise. You are completely insincere in your argument style because you know that you position is wrong. If you legitimately want to argue this then a good point to start would be for you to define what qualities a rich life style has. I won't hold my breath because we both know that leads to a conclusion you don't want to face so back to your delusional bashing.

Henry, where in your list is having the freedom to post 22 thousand posts to an internet forum? That's gotta be there.

Congrats, you're RICH!!!!!!

You've made a mistake coming to politics.

This is the crux of tax loving liberals on this forum.